Libertarian Party Act VIII

The Dissection of the Libertarian Party platform enters the final section, which will be comprised of three Acts. Here are some tougher topics that I look forward to the conversation around. National Security and Individual Rights are the topics in this section, which means that some of you are going to have really strong opinions. But I find that this section gives me a lot of unanswered questions.

As always, be respectful. Also as always, the highlighted orange parts are what I copied directly from the Libertarian Party official Site.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

I am really unsure about this first statement. The only purpose of the government? Perhaps in some ideal world this is true, but that is not what the beloved Constitution lays out for us. Certainly individual rights are important. According to Article I Section 8, the Congress is given the right to tax us in order to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” of the citizens as well, right? So does that imply that the government is supposed to provide those two things?

Now the second sentence is a little more in line with my thinking. The government is supposed to be limited in that it is not supposed to infringe on the individual rights of its citizens. Now this certainly brings up the tax stuff again, because we are supposed to pay taxes to fund these two things that government is supposed to be doing for us, but that certainly is infringing on my rights, especially in today’s world.

More importantly, the real question I have here is the rest of the stuff the government is doing. For example, in providing for the common defense and general welfare, the government has taken it upon itself to give us the Patriot Act and a multitude of other “rules” that 100% inherently infringe on our rights. How can we rectify this?

Finally, I like the non-initiation of force talk but I don’t think it is realistic in today’s world. I know some of you are going to disagree. I see this as a serious disadvantage if we take it too literally. So I question how literally the Libertarian party is meaning it when they say it. I am more of a realist. I would like to see us not initiate any conflict with other countries. But should they begin to threaten us or pose a serious threat, I don’t think the smart move is to wait for them to act.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

I also support a sufficient military to defend against aggression. I only question where we draw the line for aggression. Again I point that aggression is not always in the form of making the move completely. We should have enough force to move aggressively in face of an imminent threat. If Iran drops a Nuclear Weapon on Israel and starts telling the world that the US is next, I see that as aggression and I want to deal with it.

This is an aspect of this we haven’t seen before. We took the non-initiation thing literally in World War II. We let the world fight things out and stayed out of it until Japan decided to sink our ships in Pearl Harbor. Then we entered. Its cool, it worked out. But should we have, perhaps, been more aggressive against Germany after they took Poland and started gathering Jews and aiming for our allies? Where do we draw the line at what constitutes aggression?

I do agree that we should stop trying to be the world police and that we should avoid entangling alliances. What constitutes an entangling alliance though? I get that supporting Israel qualifies in most people’s minds. But what about all the other countries? Should we not have any alliance with anyone? It is kind of like saying that you shouldn’t make any friends at your school because you might one day have to stop a school bully from beating up your friend. Alliances are good things. We are now in a global economy with global impacts. Shouldn’t we be forming alliances with everyone we can?

The compulsory national service is a no brainer. It is interesting to see this one after writing the post a couple weeks ago about the Obama/Emanuel plan to create a Compulsory Civilian National Security Force. I don’t like a draft in any form. Part of what makes our military great is that everyone who is there is a volunteer. We have maintained that especially well in our Special Operations forces. The Ranger motto is “Sua Sponte”, meaning “Of Their Own Accord”. An all volunteer group that accomplishes their tasks without prompting. How many of you knew that?

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

Amen. We have to be able to protect ourselves. To that end there are going to be intelligence agencies that work towards that end, such as the CIA, FBI, and NSA. I am glad to see that the Libertarian Party sees the need for that to happen.

I am equally glad to see that the LP believes that this should not take priority over individual rights. Oversight and Transparency is the key. No change in a time of war or any other time. Be either transparent in your dealings immediately or at least have an oversight authority that can see what is going on at all times.

So where does this leave me on the issue? The Patriot Act is the prime example again. It basically gave all government agencies license to infringe on our privacy and personal freedoms. This is unacceptable and should be stopped. I know the arguments from those who say sometimes we have to act secretly to not tip our hand. However I think this can be accomplished without violating transparency and oversight.

Perhaps we don’t tell the public everything. But we can still have a requirement for a court order to get a wiretap regardless of situations. We could set up a civilian oversight court that is always available to review a case and issue a court order.

Finally I want to see a much shorter period for what is kept secret. I know that the general rule was that the “top secret” stuff was classified for 50 years. Way too long. As soon as a conflict is over, there is no longer a reason to hide it from the public. By the time things are viewable by the public under the current system, those to be held responsible for bad actions are dead. That is not a system that lends itself to personal responsibility for one’s actions.

I could talk about this last section for hours and write much more. But I will leave it for the discussions below. I think that this Act was fairly straightforward with what it said, but there are an awful lot of questions that I had to pose up there, so I need to hear some opinions.

Comments

From the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Securing Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness is why government exists, and regardless of anything else, or any other justifications for its existence, when government fails to protect these things or becomes the greatest threat to them, it is the right and the duty of the people to force government back in line or get rid of it. We have tried to force it back in line, only to be called “domestic terrorists”.

Through experience and the lessons of history, we have been shown that no government will ever continue to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Will we waste our education? Self government is the only form that will secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All the rest is utopian dreaming. It fails every single time it is tried, sooner or later.

The wording of the Constitution is hideously flawed. “Common defense” and “general welfare” are much too nebulous. They can be used to justify anything the government decides to do. Especially since the government is the organization who gets to decide how to interpret it all.

Initiation of Force- I have never had to initiate force. It works in the real world as a real-world philosophy.

I see “alliances” as completely separate from “trade”. No favoritism, no embargoes, no letting bully governments pick fights knowing that “Big Brother USA” is standing behind them.

Government secrecy is a double abomination. Do you let your employees or “servants” sneak around in your house, snoop through your stuff, and then claim it is for your own good? I wouldn’t. Someone, and I can’t remember who, said that the only capital punishment he was in favor of was for government employees or agents who kept a secret from the public.

I don’t have time to cover everything just now so I will pick one and come back and do more later. Government secrecy, if looked at in that way, cannot be thoroughly evaluated. If the government is tracking a suspected terrorist and tapping his phone, you can’t put that out there for everyone or you are wasting your time. However, I do think they should have to have a court order to do so and that as soon as the surveillance bears its fruit, the public has a right to know what its servant was doing.

We all have secrets. I have a gift for my wife for Christmas. I won’t tell her what it is. But she will know after Christmas all there is to know. I am hiding something from her in this case for a good reason. The government is no different, there are times when there is good reason for something to not be public. However, that time is short, not 50 years. There is no point where the government should be hiding what has already been done.

I think that the one issue that so many people have is that you continue to use the term government like it is a giant evil being. It is a collection of people, some good, some bad. Unfortunately we find a lot of bad these days. But don’t let that cloud the fact that a government can, in fact, be a good thing. It doesn’t have to be evil. Evil people can make it that way. Getting rid of government will not get rid of the evil in people’s hearts. It will only loosen the rules. That quote from the Declaration of Independence shows that government is instituted for good, and can be so. At this point our government has crossed some lines, but there are still some good people there.

To that end I believe that government is what it is because we have allowed it to become that. We are willing accomplices to what our government does, evil or good, because we fail to participate and hold them accountable. To that end, I believe that is is far easier for people to start participating and holding government accountable, than it is to eliminate government and have to fend for ourselves. Hence why I am advocate for government reform rather than government elimination. I will be doing a post on this this subject tonight.

The quote from the Declaration of Independence shows that those who wrote it were under the belief that government could be good, not that it really can be. I can write that Unicorns eat blue bananas, and for some odd reason I might really believe it, but that doesn’t make it so.

Yes, I do believe that “government” is a completely, irredeemably evil “thing”. I realize it is made up of individuals, and not all of them are bad. In practice, however, the worst of the worst are elevated to the positions of power. The rest support the evil that powers the system. The reality of what really happens in the real world shows the flaws in the concept. Something that shouldn’t exist has no “rights” or legitimate authority to keep secrets from the most pathetic gutter bum.

The issue for me is that if we, as a group, cannot keep government under control, then I am not sure that your alternative is going to work any better. Our country is in the state that it is in because we as a people have failed to hold government in check, failed to hold it accountable. If we are too lazy or self-centered to exercise the minimum control needed to do this task, if we are too apathetic to demand our media be honest, if we cannot be bothered to make government work for us rather than the other way around, then I cannot fathom those same people having the drive and work ethic to survive in the world you envision. You are talking about a world where people are personally responsible, where people are tough enough and have the work ethic to survive without any assistance. And you think those that cannot do my way can do yours?

Government is a necessity in today’s world, whether you are willing to admit it or not. Because no matter what you do personally, the rest of the world will have it. The United States could give up government and give in to all that you demand, and that will only mean you will learn to speak Chinese or become a Hinduist. The rest of the world will not go along with the plan and it won’t be long before they come along and take over the same way the Persians and Romans took over any land where government didn’t exist.

USWep says:“The issue for me is that if we, as a group, cannot keep government under control, then I am not sure that your alternative is going to work any better. “

This was the attempt at a counter argument to Smith’s Free Market treatise.

“If massive, overt control over the economy cannot succeed, then freedom of the market cannot succeed….”

It is BECAUSE there is an attempt to control free people is the reason why things are out of control.

Adam Smith fought the same belief – and he was right. Government believes they know more than the aggregate of the people. The fact is, the aggregate is infinitely more wise than the few in political control.

“Our country is in the state that it is in because we as a people have failed to hold government in check, failed to hold it accountable.”

You are in the position of calling your father and your father’s father an idiot. I suggest you are wrong.

You cannot hold a power of violence “in check” with pieces of paper. They tried. Are you suggesting that by some innate power that was not within your father or grandfather’s grasp you can do more than they?

“You are talking about a world where people are personally responsible, where people are tough enough and have the work ethic to survive without any assistance. And you think those that cannot do my way can do yours?

That is the ongoing mistake that you make about freedom.

Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with “everyone” believing or doing anything.

This is the exact example of a Statist mind – if you cannot control, it cannot be possible.

But, USWep, you can’t control anything now! The government-idea is a total failure – obviously!!

Yet, your demand is that freedom must be perfect. But your government-Statist ideal has been shown to be a total failure – so why do you not extend the same measure to your government ideal as you demand of freedom?

Here is the concept of disunity between you and I, even though we are so close in thoughts.

For me, freedom is the end – not a means.

For you, freedom is a means – not an end.

Politics – power is the end, not a means. Everything, including death, is merely a means to more power. (See “1984” for a brilliant philosophical discourse on power).

The difference between us is you have power as an end, and I have freedom as an end.

I disagree with what you have suggested about my state of mind. First, I don’t think my father or grandfather to be idiots. Quite the contrary in fact. What I said is that people are apathetic. There is a distinct difference between my saying that people are not smart enough to hold the government in check and my saying that people are too self-centered and apathetic to keep it in check. I am not sure how you turned what I said into having anything to do with brains or intelligence. We are plenty smart enough to hold government in check, we are too lazy to do so.

The government idea isn’t a total failure, it is in need of adjustment. I suggest that is instead you that see things as black and white. It isn’t perfect and therefore it is a failure. That is how you see our state. I don’t demand that the government be perfect, just better. I hold the same demand of freedom. 100% freedom will not happen, you and I both know that whether you are willing to admit it or not. So I demand better, not perfect.

Freedom is an end for me as well, although not the same freedom that is your end. You see a world where we are free to do ANYTHING, where I see a world where even the most basic animals that form societies have rules that are followed. We are animals just like any other, and animals that set up societies have a hierarchy and rules. Politics is a power is the ends thing for me. Quite the opposite. Politics, when done correctly will give the world order, structure, and more freedom.

The comparison to the economic statement was off base. I would agree with what you said. I am not looking for overt massive control, I am looking for minimalist rules and structure. There can be government and a free market. It just needs to be kept that way by the people. The reason I say that people today cannot survive in the world you guys speak of is that they are apathetic, lazy, and more than anything, dependent.

I have read 1984 and Ayn Rand and many other books like you speak of. Chaos books that have good premises but believing the premise doesn’t mean that the outcome is absolute. There are many things in those books that happen to get to the result you see. Use them as a guide, not an oracle.

However, your discourse claims that, somehow, they were negligent in allowing the government to overrule a piece of paper.

Otherwise, by your argument, we would not be here as we are today… right? If they ‘did their job’ you would not have to fight for your freedom….

Therefore, if we both believe they were not idiots, yet unable to enforce the ‘right’ upon their government when the government was far weaker than now, how can you possibly claim that by some unknown super-power you can do what they failed?

What I said is that people are apathetic.

Yes, I was on the road with them…. a little snow, and the idiots panic!

But, pathetic as they are, they have all the right to be free!

Many days, I argue with myself that the ‘people-sheep’ need to be beaten senseless – with me holding the whip.

But by what right? That I’m somehow, by genetic accident, smarter then they?
How does that allow me to take, steal, punish, demand, rule … the people?

We are plenty smart enough to hold government in check, we are too lazy to do so.

It is not smarts, nor effort. Come on!

You live in the greatest explosion of human intellect in action in history…

The government idea isn’t a total failure, it is in need of adjustment.

In the 20th century, government killed more humans than the natural disasters.

I’m unclear what you will need to prove ‘a total failure’.

You are fighting for a government of your own ideal. What is this ideal, USWep? I missing it.

You agree it is an agency of violence – initiation of violence – yet, you hold that somehow, this entity that demands it can attack you without cause is somehow redeemable.

I suggest that is instead you that see things as black and white. It isn’t perfect and therefore it is a failure.

LoL.

It is black and white. That which destroys freedom cannot create freedom.

Perfection is not my demand – but yours.

Government has failed, but before you throw it away, you demand heaven in it’s place. (I simply insist on freedom.)

This is the usual retort of a paradigm shift denier.

The paradigm is changing but anything that contradicts the paradigm must be perfect, or else the paradigm must remain.

That is how you see our state. I don’t demand that the government be perfect, just better.

Government is getting better!! Your wish is coming true.

Government is larger, more pervasive, more dominating, then ever before! How much more better do you demand???

I hold the same demand of freedom. 100% freedom will not happen, you and I both know that whether you are willing to admit it or not. So I demand better, not perfect.

It will happen – however, I think you equate freedom=happy=peace=no worry.

That is your flaw in your ideal.

You are uncomfortable with freedom because it does not guarantee happiness, no guarantee of peace, and offers lots of worry.

Freedom simply offers one thing – freedom.

As long as you yearn for no worry, guarantees of peace, and demands of unearned happiness, you will always search something else, no matter the horror, as long as the lies are enticing, more palatable, for you.

Freedom is the goal, not happiness.

Freedom is the goal, not peace.

Peace without freedom is slavery.

Happiness without freedom is slavery in a golden cage.

Freedom is the goal, not the end.

Freedom is an end for me as well, although not the same freedom that is your end. You see a world where we are free to do ANYTHING, where I see a world where even the most basic animals that form societies have rules that are followed.

Of course, you immediately deny intellect of freedom – yet demand it of me to understand the goals of your insane government.

Do you not understand the “mutuality of action” that is inherent in your own instinct – your own genes?? You act on this everyday! Yet, you deny it’s existence in a most basic form!

We are animals just like any other, and animals that set up societies have a hierarchy and rules.

Rules are not government, nor politics.

Baseball rules are not enforced by the US Marines or the NY Police dept.

Do not confuse rules by consent with ‘law by force’.

Politics, when done correctly will give the world order, structure, and more freedom.

Tools of violence upon innocent people cannot create freedom, no matter how hard you try to use them.

Government exist on one rule – the right to initiate violence to enforce an edict.

Therefore, it can not create freedom.

There can be government and a free market.

Freedom and tyranny cannot coexist.

One lives as the other dies.

It just needs to be kept that way by the people.

How? More pieces of paper?

As long as you give the government legitimacy – you give the government right to tyranny.

Chaos books that have good premises but believing the premise doesn’t mean that the outcome is absolute.

Again, you betray your need for something other than freedom.

Your real goal maybe ‘peace’. Slaves have peace.

Your real goal maybe no stress. Slaves have no stress – all the decision and responsibility are borne on their masters.

Your real goal maybe happiness. But happiness is merely a state of mind that you own. No one can give you happiness that you don’t first have.

So until you are absolutely clear on what you want, you will continue to feed tyranny.

Since we all admit that neither freedom nor government can ever be absolutely “perfect”, I submit that it is always better to err on the side of freedom, rather than control. I always think it is better to risk possible harm by not acting, rather than to risk possible harm by my direct actions. The guilt is much more firmly attached to one course of action than the other.

Do we have to do this every time. It wastes so much energy when you make your argument by playing on words when you know that what you are claiming is not what I was saying. So I will go forth and address them again. Please pay attention.

Again, apathetic is not the same as unable. They were not idiots. They simply were complacent. They did not “do their jobs”. They were supposed to be holding the government accountable. They did not. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. It has to do with actions. They didn’t perform theirs. Had Americans for all these years been holding the government accountable and forcing them to answer to the people, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Don’t throw out silly things like you did. Answer the question that I asked, not the ones you choose to use. So to better answer your questions by correcting the premise:

Is this a lazy time in terms of people participating in politics? Absolutely. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Is this a stupid time in terms of understanding politics and government? Absolutely.
When it comes to politics, it is a lazy and stupid time. You are way too smart to not know that this is what I meant, so stop trying to confuse the issue with irrelevant things.

You say pathetic, I say apathetic. Two completely different words and meanings. Do they all have the right to freedom? Yes and they also have the means to attain it as soon as they get off their ass, organize, and take it back from the government.

When I say government needs to be better, you are well aware that your “interpretation” is not what I mean. Another smokescreen.

Big words like paradigm shift denier are further smokescreens and you know full well that I don’t expect perfection in order to change. It isn’t that I need your version of Freedom to be perfect. I believe that your idea of what the world should be is not one that is better than the one we have now. I am not “scared” of your beliefs, I just don’t think they are better than mine.

A statement about the government killing more than the natural disasters is ridiculous. Again you point to inane things rather than addressing your own belief. Somalia has no government. Haven’t had one since 1992. There is an example of what happens when there is no government. Your argument is akin to me saying that government has saved more lives than natural disasters took. Another true fact. Our government has fed hundreds of billions of starving people. For every evil you can mention about the government of the 20th century, I can name a good thing they did too. It is a silly exercise meant to confuse the issue.

That which destroys freedom cannot create freedom. Thanks Captain Obvious. But government doesn’t have to destroy freedom. I can accept this to be true, you simply cannot. The only way to the freedom that you espouse is to live as a hermit and interact with no one ever again. For doing anything else will place rules on you. And you will no longer be the free that you espouse. You simply want to live in a world where there are absolutely no rules except the ones that you make. I don’t want to live in that world. It is chaos. You make it sound great, but a certain amount of structure brings order to our world and allows me to live a civilized life. There is nothing wrong with that. Every relationship, from the one you have with your wife to the one the citizens have with the government, has rules. You would like to remove all of those and I don’t think that makes the world a better place. You apparently do think so.

Again with the tools of violence, government violence, rule by force, all these things you keep saying. That is not what government has to be, that is what our government has become. Get past all the rhetoric and find the path forward. Government does not have to be what it currently is. First accept that and perhaps you will be on the road to recovery.

“Freedom and Tyranny cannot coexist” I do not advocate tyranny. I advocate government. Two very different things in my eyes. Again, don’t equate what government is with what I believe government can be. I know you like to throw those lines out there because they sound very revolutionary and make the perfect argument for getting rid of government. But your failure to visualize government as it can be, instead relying on on what it is, is the thing that will keep you from finding the better path.

I know what I want. It is not the same as what you want. Because I can see the need to have a government. I look for it to be as good as possible. That can happen. You continue to attempt to make it out that I either don’t know what I want or am too afraid of your alternative or cannot fathom a world that is tough. These are all false claims. By organizing we make my life better. By allowing the government to do what it has done, they start to erode that premise. I like a lot of what the government provides. That isn’t a flaw or a weakness. It is a choice. It doesn’t make me stupid or less enlightened than you. It is merely a different point of view. I simply believe that a government that works the way that it should makes my life better.

This government that you despise has done a lot of bad things. But there are good too. You and I both enjoy prosperity and a fairly good life. We are the greatest country on earth, and our government has had a lot to do with that. Simply failing to acknowledge any of the good makes you focus entirely on the bad. And that makes you so tunnel-visioned that you can’t see the potential. The freedom you define doesn’t exist anywhere on this earth. Nowhere, not one single place. And while this government isn’t perfect, it is better than a lot of the ones out there. It can be better than it is, and I will work on that. But I don’t believe that the world can be a better place without it.

And what Jefferson didn’t say in that quote is that it was plausible to have no government. Your quote is a great one, and goes right along with what I am saying. Government needs reform, so as to not force people to be abused by too much government.

I wish I had time to jump in here, all I can say is that there is and can be a balance.

One quick note in the first thing you said USW, the only purpose of the government should be the protection of its citizens’ rights. Think of the other functions of government you support such as military, police, courts, etc., and you will see that all of those things are, in fact, protection of citizen rights. Infrastructure and emergency services are the only exceptions to this, and those are a very minor part of government function that many libertarians do not even support. I myself am on the fence on those subjects. But the idea that government is there for the protection of its citizens and maintaining of their rights and freedoms and the free market is actually pretty accurate, even by constitutional standards.

Kent I do agree that the Constitutional statement is flawed because it is too open ended and nebulous. It could be used to support socialized everything by claiming that it applies as “general welfare”.

For it to exist it must steal from the people (taxes) to pay for the things you want it to do. As soon as you justify theft for ‘a thing’ you believe is important, I can justify theft for ‘a thing’ I believe is important, and then so can Ken, Jon, Rev, and so on. Without exception, your government becomes a tyranny – for it cannot help itself because that is what is born to do.

As soon as you demand my money by force, you’ve destroyed freedom.

The only way out of this cycle is not allow government to tax. But without the power to tax, it cannot live – government is not a free-enterprise business.

Further, government cannot allow competition – it must prevent other organizations offering protection services within its own geographical area – and it can only do this by initiation of violence.

As soon as you justify initiation of violence, you’ve destroyed freedom.

So right out of the box, you have an open-ended justification of theft and violence and destruction of freedom.

It is not lazy nor apathy – it is irrelevance. Everyday people are recognizing the irrelevance of government in their lives – that is, government is not and cannot provide for them. Can government ruin their lives? Yes. Can government help their lives? No.

More and more people realize that they have no influence upon government – RepDem is a single government on the same team – it matters not one wit who is in power because it is the same power.

The same churn occurred in the religious reformations a few hundred years ago – more and more people simply stopped recognizing the Church as relevant in their lives. Could the church destroy their lives – yes, and did – but, eventually, the power of the Church was destroyed – today we stand amazed that merely 500 years ago people simply could not believe they could survive without the Pope. A few hundred years from now they will stand amazed that you believed you couldn’t live without a government.

“You and I both enjoy prosperity and a fairly good life. We are the greatest country on earth, and our government has had a lot to do with that.Your government has not done a darn thing for you that you couldn’t have done or had done for you by free people better and cheaper.”

Your government since the day it was born slaughtered innocent women and child in your own country by the hundreds of thousands to seize the land. (Natives)

Your government attacked a non-threatening nation to seize its holdings in Latin America and the Pacific. (Spain)

Your government invaded a country under the guise of liberating it from its colonizers, and then brutally put in place its own colonizers – killing a million or more people. (Philippines)

Of course, I could go on and on and you know it.

You say you this is good – because you have benefited from it.

What you have also done is forget the incredible suffering and pain of millions of innocent people endured so that you can look upon your life and claim it ‘good’.

To benefit from evil is not a good.

I reach back to one of Ken’s very profound posts on his blog:

“So, moving along- “Innocent” means someone who does not deserve harm, at least in the immediate instant or situation. So, it is bad to harm someone who doesn’t deserve to be harmed.

If it is not wrong to harm the innocent, I would say there is NO such thing as “wrong” at all.”

If by purpose, one can claim harming innocent is not wrong – that benefiting from such harm is not wrong – that support those that do such harm is not wrong –

then there is no such thing as “wrong” at all!

So, this may be a great country – but it is not because of government. Government has injured the country – perhaps fatally – and any support of it makes ‘wrong’ a word without any real definition or meaning.

And once no one recognizes ‘wrong’ any more – we are, thus, mere animals once again.

For government to achieve the power it currently holds required the necessity for it to actively destroy the fundamental human power structures – family and community.

Government infested community works. They replaced community services by charity and commerce and replaced it with its government services. Child care – borne traditionally by the extended family – was seized by the government. Charity was seized by the government – Social Services. Care for the elderly – again an extended family function – was seized by the government, etc.

It takes effort and commitment to care for extended family – and along with the promises of an young life unburdened by care for the young, weak, sick and elderly – the youthful adults bought into the lie.

Family is destroyed – to now, children are raised by the government – starting in pre-school and continuing in their mid 20’s through college. It is all government throughout the most formative years of human life. With no wonder, kids come out of it thinking that government is its father/mother.

Instead of supporting government action, support family action.

Support those that demand to school their kids at home.
Support those that promote the freedom of choice for family.
Support local community and its independence from federal money.

Work to rebuild the core of human society and wrestle it back away from government – build family, church and community.

I agree that those things fall under protecting people’s rights, and that is why I support them. I am not out to eliminate government, only to regain some control over it. I think that their can absolutely be a balance, which seems to be the big difference between me and some other folks.

To your first point, I simply disagree. All taxation is not theft. I know that you and Kent classify it as such, but in applying that classification as part of explaining how I think or feel, you have already committed a mistake that renders the rest of that post moot. I don’t justify theft, because I don’t think taxing is theft.

At the core is the fact that we live in the United States, established so over 200 years ago with the Constitution serving as the document that sets the rules for being in America. While sometimes vague, and sometimes flawed, it is the document that we go by in this country. You are free to go by a different document in another country, but in this country it is what we go by. And that document specifically allows for taxation in order to accomplish certain things. So it isn’t theft.

I know you and Kent will say that taxes are out of hand. That taxes now exist that the constitution doesn’t allow for. I won’t argue that, But that doesn’t mean that all taxes are not allowed. I know you will make the statement that you didn’t sign the document and therefore you didn’t agree to those rules. But so long as you choose to live in this country, those are the rules. A lot of bad rules have been tacked on since, and if you want to eliminate those I am right there with you. But if you want to live in America, the ones in the Constitution are the law of the land. And I back them up. Outside of the Constitution, fair game. Inside of the Constitution, non negotiable unless the PEOPLE of the United States decide to change them. You said as soon as money is demanded of you, you have lost your freedom. I don’t believe that to be true. You are always free to leave the country and find a set of rules you agree with more. That isn’t a “we don’t want you here” statement, I hope you realize that. It is merely a fact. You are free to operate outside of every rule America makes…. outside of America. But to stay here, those are the rules.

You are very committed to the idea of violence is always the result. I am not. I don’t think that a government must stop other groups from offering protection services within its geographic area. I think that if those protection services defy the constitution, however, it is the government’s job to stop them.

I didn’t say that I couldn’t live without government. I said I didn’t want to. Big difference. And check into it a bit, billions of people still believe that they cannot live without the church. One third of the world is Christian. Everyone believe in some form of religion for the most part. Less than 1% of the world is atheist.

I know that all of you who hate government love to throw around those numbers about how evil “my” government is. You fall under the false pretense that millions of people wouldn’t have died anyway. It just would have been under a different hand. Violence and slaughter existed long before America joined the party. You just choose to only see the world through those hate filled eyes. You will never see any of the good that the government does, and that is a shame. It is a nifty little tirade to go through with the innocents and harm and there being no wrong. But you again falsely assume that I see those things through rose colored glasses. I don’t condone those things or think that they are “OK”. I merely don’t fault all of government because there were times that they acted inappropriately. Because of what government has been, you choose to assume that is all that it can ever be. I choose to believe differently.

Path Forward…Good post. I do support that part of what you are saying. I haven’t claimed otherwise. I seek a country that has a far less intrusive government that serves a minimal purpose and stays out of our way. I simply do not wish to eliminate it completely. There is the difference in our philosophies. I would point you to the reforming versus eliminating government post. Your unwillingness to find a medium that we can move forward towards is the exact thing the government needs to keep us all divided. You have your ideal, anything less is unacceptable, even if it means that your ideal can never come to fruition. The problem is that for your preferred future, you will need an all out revolution. For mine, I just need a plan, because the document that controls this country’s actions supports my future vision.

Interesting comment. Forcefully taking money from me for them to spend it on things I would not spend it on is not theft to you.

I do understand that you cannot agree to this point, because it is the pivotal point of all understanding of all government. To see this as it is would expose the raw evil of all government to its core – and you hold steadfast the belief that government is not ‘all evil’ and ‘can do good’.

Thus, it becomes a battle for your mind – (just like in my pub/magician story) – either justify theft or see naked evil. The two cannot coexist in a single thought.

I do understand that it is far easier to justify the theft. It is difficult to look into the face of raw evil and not be afraid.

At the core is the fact that we live in the United States, established so over 200 years ago with the Constitution serving as the document that sets the rules for being in America.

You consistently make the same mistake over and over.

The constitution is not the rules for being in America.

It was supposed to be the rules upon the actions of the government.

This terrible confusion is among the reasons the constitution has never been more than an excuse to invoke more government tyranny instead of preventing it.

And that document specifically allows for taxation in order to accomplish certain things. So it isn’t theft.

If I write on a piece of paper that I am allowed to take your house, and if you resist, I have the right to kill you, will you agree this is not theft?

When can I come and get my new house?

I know you and Kent will say that taxes are out of hand.

Whether the tax is 1% or 40%.

Whether the tax is $1 or $100,000.

Whether you steal penny-candy or a $50 billion.

It’s still theft.

But to stay here, those are the rules.

Ah yes, the ol’ fallacy “if they are stealing your couch, you can always abandon the house.”

You position is, paraphrased, that the rulers make the rules, and no matter the rules, you will act on them. If they steal, it isn’t theft because they said they can do that. If they kill, it isn’t murder because they said they can do that.

BF,
Is money given for services rendered theft? Of course not, that is simply the second half of a transaction. If you deny the government compensation for what it does that benefits you, then you are the one committing theft. Taxation is simply the enforcement of a contract. If I have a business and I perform a service, but my customer refuses to pay me, then I will use force to exact payment. In a world with a government, that force is simply legal threat, which is superior to my own personal threats both morally and effectively. This shows two points: 1) Force or threat of force to prevent theft is ok, and 2) The government provides a service that I am willing to pay for that permits me to use threat of force that is not physical, nor does it require me to personally weild more power than the person I am doint business with. It equalizes power so that force does not become part of a business transaction at all. It allows the free market to operate. Certainly most persons would not resort to theft and force and so forth, but the marginal case would still disrupt the market, and the more it occurred the more it would increasingly occur because of the effect on social mores.

Now, government enforced charity or wealth redistribution is another matter, because those things do not benefit you, even though you are forced to pay for them. Perhaps some of the other things the government does you would prefer to see done by a private entity, but until that actually changes, you have no business calling taxation theft, if it is used to actually pay for services. At a minimum, there would be a transition period. The market is dynamic and responds quickly, but not overnight.

You fall under the false pretense that millions of people wouldn’t have died anyway

So I can kill you, since you will die anyway.

One hellava argument, USWep.

Since there is violence and murder, its ok to act violent and murder, because others are doing it anyway – so its ok for us to do it too.

Church
You mistaken a major point. 500 years ago, if you didn’t believe in the Pope’s power – you would be dragged to jail, tortured, burned alive.

Today, many people believe that no one has a right to force you to believe in a darn thing.

If you want to believe in government and are happy to give it 40% of your wealth – I don’t have a problem with that at all! Heck, I might even change my name to “Black Gov” so you can throw me some of your dough, too~!

But the moment you demand that I have to do the same thing as you – we’ve got a big problem.

Jon:Is money given for services rendered theft? Of course not, that is simply the second half of a transaction.

You miss one important point.

If the transaction is created by coercion, then the ‘2nd half’ of the transaction is still theft

The transaction must start voluntarily.

There is nothing ‘voluntary’ about government tax.

If you deny the government compensation for what it does that benefits you, then you are the one committing theft. Taxation is simply the enforcement of a contract.

It is my choice of what does or does not benefit me. If I want it, I will buy it. If I don’t, I don’t want to buy it.

You forcing me to accept what you shove down my throat – and then claim I owe you a fee – is still theft.

If I have a business and I perform a service, but my customer refuses to pay me, then I will use force to exact payment.

Actually, you are not allowed to use force at all. But that is another discussion.

The point here is that both you and your customer entered the transaction purposely, freely, voluntarily and without coercion.

Much of those conditions do not exist with government.

This shows two points: 1) Force or threat of force to prevent theft is ok, and 2) The government provides a service that I am willing to pay for

That works for me – if you WANT that service, they YOU pay for it.

Keep your darn paws out of my wallet, though.

Now, government enforced charity or wealth redistribution is another matter, because those things do not benefit you, even though you are forced to pay for them. Perhaps some of the other things the government does you would prefer to see done by a private entity, but until that actually changes, you have no business calling taxation theft, if it is used to actually pay for services. At a minimum, there would be a transition period. The market is dynamic and responds quickly, but not overnight.

Charity and ‘those things’ were long provided without government.

As I submitted before, Robbing banks to help the poor is wrong for me to do. Therefore it is wrong for government to do too.

I agree with the last part, of course doing evil is not a good, I clearly opposed to government wealth redistribution of any sort. I agree that it is wrong for the government to do so.

Here is my question, how do you determine whether you are receiving a benefit from our current system? I will grant that if you do not want that benefit, it could be considered a fraudulent transaction. If, for instance, an insurance company contacted me saying that they were providing insurance services to me without my consent and therefore should receive payment, I would refuse. That is indeed similar to what the government is doing in many cases. The difficulty is in seperating those who wish to have a benefit and those who do not. You are receiving the benefit of military and police protection, whether you realize it or not. You might be able to refuse their help on a micro level, given a specific situation, but you cannot quantify the benefit of having them operate on the society as a whole unless you remove yourself from within the borders of the protected area. If you wish to become your own nation state, so be it. In a perfect libertarian society, that would be permitted. It would also be necessary for persons such as yourself to exist without coersion.

I doubt, however, that most people with your line of thinking would refuse help if faced with a life or death situation. I don’t think your convictions would keep you out of an emergency room if your life depended on it. That is the potential hypocrisy of the “I don’t want your help” stance. You don’t want it because you don’t perceive a need for it. You can theoretically accept the risks involved with your decision, but it is unlikely that you can actually follow through. I am basing this on historical precedent, this is not intended to be an insult or personal attack, you may be an exception. Your world is fine in theory, but then again, so is mine. Heck, so is socialism for that matter.

In reality, transactions may be entered into voluntarily, but they are not necessarily free of fraud or dishonesty. I still do not have a satisfactory answer on how one handles criminal acts. IF someone begins a transaction voluntarily, freely, and without cosersion, but refuses to hold up their end (there is great potential for this, since some transactions are not a direct exchange, meaning that one party pays before the other, and the other could fail on their end. What is to be done in such a case?

BF,
how do you propose to create a governmentless state out of a governed one through lack of action? Doing nothing will see you have force enacted upon you. You cannot defeat a force of evil with nothing. It would be like fighting a fire by refusing to pay attention or accept its existence. It will eventually burn out, but only after everything is destroyed or consumed, especially those that did nothing. What are you counting on happening?

Here is my question, how do you determine whether you are receiving a benefit from our current system?

Same way I determine whether Wallmart is giving me a benefit or not.

I pay for it when I want it.

I do not pay for it when I do not want it.

You are receiving the benefit of military and police protection, whether you realize it or not.

This is arguable.

I am not receiving any benefit from the police. This year, my father-in-law was murdered in the stairwell of his apartment. The police did not stop this. They are not protecting anyone – in fact, the Court has stated explicitly that the police do not have any duty to protect the public They exist to protect the government and enforce its laws.

Military protection? Oh my. I am not protected by the Army in Iraq……

No different then a security company. If I felt the need to be protected, I would pay for it. Forcing me to pay for it does not improve my security one wit.

The cost of security is incredibly cheap. The cost of offensive violence is incredibly expensive.

If I build walls and hire guards to protect me, what is the incremental cost to for me to protect you when you visit me? Zero.

See Hans Hoppe’s excellent essay on protection – I don’t need to espouse all the small details here in a blog and write another book. USWep is already mad at me.

I doubt, however, that most people with your line of thinking would refuse help if faced with a life or death situation.

Correct. Why would we refuse help offered voluntarily?

I don’t think your convictions would keep you out of an emergency room if your life depended on it.

And my convictions don’t keep me out of grocery stores either, because my life does depend on them too to provide me food.

But whether my life depends on it or not – forcing people to feed me, care for me, or help me is always wrong even if my life depends on it. Turning people into my slaves, no matter how important it is too me, still makes them slaves.

In reality, transactions may be entered into voluntarily, but they are not necessarily free of fraud or dishonesty. I still do not have a satisfactory answer on how one handles criminal acts.

This is, again, an long essay very well written by Dr. Hoppe – we can certainly blog – but probably should be its own subject.

Suffice to say (so to start the salivating of another long blog post) – that you have no right to meet a non-violent crime with violence.

So as another tickler, think about this. How does international business transact?

If someone in Korea takes your money, and doesn’t ship a product, what can you do about it?

BF,
how do you propose to create a governmentless state out of a governed one through lack of action? Doing nothing will see you have force enacted upon you. You cannot defeat a force of evil with nothing. It would be like fighting a fire by refusing to pay attention or accept its existence. It will eventually burn out, but only after everything is destroyed or consumed, especially those that did nothing. What are you counting on happening?

Yes. And that is exactly how it works.

Feeding the fire more wood and fuel will not stop the fire.

Government lives on violence. Attacking it with violence or defending its violence feeds the fire.

I resist the government impositions on me the best way I can. As Kent said before – we adapt – move out of the way – avoid it at all possible.

The most important thing is to never justify government actions. Calling ‘evil’ evil is the best way to destroy it – evil cannot stand the light of day – it cannot stand being noticed – and as more people call it by its real name, the faster government loses its power over people.

Government has power because people legitimize government. As soon as people start calling its actions evil, the government begins to deflate.

Where to even begin. So many instances where you take a position and try to distort it to make a point. I say again that you aren’t making a point when you do that. You are merely distorting and clouding the debate, which does us no good here. How are we going to ever agree on anything if you constantly take what I say and try to twist it into something more grotesque? I have to get into work, where I will be until midnight, but I will answer a few here now before I go.

I didn’t support all taxes levied today at any point. But I do support the government’s right to impose some of them. The constitution gives them that power, whether you like it or you don’t. This argument that you didn’t agree to be taxed is pointless. Your constant argument that it is a battle for my mind implies that I am simply too ignorant to understand what is happening, which is a bit insulting. As is the constant twist that you put on my words in order to make my positions sound as though I lack morals.

I am not afraid to look in the face of anything. It is not that I see evil and choose to call it good because I need to justify my evil government because my “statist” mind cannot grasp your reality. I simply like to have some services provided and I don’t mind that I have to pay for those services. You would like the perfect situation where you personally get to decide each and every dollar spent based on your personal desires. It is a very selfish position to take. I don’t like a welfare state, but I certainly think a state in which everyone contributes doesn’t make it evil.

I have no misconceptions about the constitution. I know what it says. And by setting rules for the government, it establishes what the government can and cannot legally do in the territory known as America. You would simply like an exception for the little piece of that territory that you call your own. No you weren’t there to sign it, nor was I. But we are here with the rules in place. You just don’t like the idea of paying for the benefits you get from the government because it means that someone else might benefit simultaneously.

I am used to the liberals arguing Iraq is not benefitting me. But I expect a better argument than that from you. The military does far more than Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps you are forgetting that because of that military you don’t live in Germany East now. Or that you aren’t in a pile of terrorist rubble. Again the argument turns to you simply pointing out the easy target and ignoring all of the good things that are provided. It must be a tough world to live in. Do you apply the same standards to your spouse? Would you disown her because she doesn’t put the cap on the toothpaste? There is good and bad in everything. Accepting that is the first step. Try acknowledging some of the good instead or remaining so steadfast focused on the bad.

You have used the couch/house argument before when that is not what is being said. What is being said is that if you don’t like the system in the country that you choose to live in, then you are free to go. If you live in a neighborhood where they steal your couch, you do have the ability to sell your house and move to one you find more suitable. Or you could stop insisting that police do nothing for you and perhaps they will stop the couch stealing. I am sorry to hear of your father-in-law’s demise. That is always sad. But again, focusing on the bad and refusing to acknowledge the good is the issue for you. My world is a much safer place with police than without them.

And you have my position wrong. People make the rules, and that is where the constitution came from. And so long as those rules are moral in my opinion, then yes I will follow them. No I wouldn’t kill Jews if the government said to, that is another radical statement made with the intent of making it sound as though I blindly follow any order. I give you more credit than that, I would appreciate similar consideration.

“So many instances where you take a position and try to distort it to make a point.”

If you really read to think – you’d find very little distortion at all.

What I point out in your arguments typically revolve around these points:

1) You want to use violence on innocent people some of the time to accomplish some grand and important goal, and at the same time, limit this use of violence so not to apply it “too much”.

Yet, you have never demonstrated on how you chose what is important – and prevent others from claiming their stuff important too – and how to stop violence on innocent people once you’ve been successful the first time.

Jefferson thought a piece of paper might do it. He was wrong, and he said so himself.

I didn’t support all taxes levied today at any point. But I do support the government’s right to impose some of them.

What defines your limit? 10%, 50%, 1% – fix dollar amount?

How do you determine “how much”, from who, for what? If the current tax rate didn’t pay for all your goodies, would you take more?

What determines the goodies you want government to do for you? Your horoscope?

In fact, it is merely subjective – there is no manner nor meaning nor justification for it.

The constitution gives them that power, whether you like it or you don’t.

My piece of paper says you have to give me your house. It’s all signed and all, and I had 5 people vote for it and they all said ‘Yes’. Hand it over!

This argument that you didn’t agree to be taxed is pointless.

Au contraire – it is the point.

You cannot, in the same argument, claim a good while ignoring an evil.

As long as you blind yourself to evil, you can do nothing but perpetuate it.

Your constant argument that it is a battle for my mind implies that I am simply too ignorant to understand what is happening, which is a bit insulting.

It is a battle for your mind, and its not insulting. This the most important battle for your life.

On one hand, there is this massive evil that wants you.

On the other, freedom.

You want both at the same time – but they are in contradiction.

You battle here and in your mind, desperately, to find somehow, somewhere, some ‘plan’, that will merge two contradictions.

My hope is reason and logic – neither of which you have yet to disprove or negate – you’ve simply ignored it.

..lack morals…

No. You lack the immutable foundation of principles. You may have principles – but they are not immutable – they wave and vary.

Theft is wrong, but it’s ok if a piece of paper says its ok….as an example.

As soon as you root yourself in an immutable principle, you will find your way out of Statist hell.

I simply like to have some services provided and I don’t mind that I have to pay for those services.

I don’t mind paying for services too. I do that daily – but nobody forces it down my throat and calls it a ‘service’.

But you are the twister. You make yourself believe you voluntarily pay for those services – knowing full well whether you wanted it or not, you’re getting it – good and hard.

You would like the perfect situation where you personally get to decide each and every dollar spent based on your personal desires.

Hmm, that is what happens every day for me – I’m sadden you do not have the same joy.

It is a very selfish position to take.

Why? It’s my money!

I don’t like a welfare state, but I certainly think a state in which everyone contributes doesn’t make it evil.

Forcing contribution is evil – no matter how much paint you want to wash it with.

I contribute to Walmart, my grocery store, my gas station, etc. Funny how none of these guys need a gun to get my money.

I have no misconceptions about the constitution. I know what it says. And by setting rules for the government, it establishes what the government can and cannot legally do in the territory known as America.

And with out exception, it has ignored that ‘mere piece of paper’ at will.

. You just don’t like the idea of paying for the benefits you get from the government because it means that someone else might benefit simultaneously.

The store owner benefits from my purchase – at the same time I benefit from the purchase. This is call ‘free market’. I know its hard for you to see this, but this happens billions of times a day, if you’d notice it.

I do not want to pay for anything I do not want – even if you want it so bad you’re willing to support someone stealing my money to pay for YOU.

That’s the issue – you don’t want to pay for it all by yourself. I don’t want it. But that matters zippo to you. You want me to pay for it, so you don’t have to foot the whole bill. So you support the theft – it makes it cheaper for you to buy!

The military does far more than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, isn’t that so disappointing. They are screwing up more than these couple of countries – and have been doing it for 200 years.

Perhaps you are forgetting that because of that military you don’t live in Germany East now.

They did not save me from East Germans, nor the Nazis, nor the Japanese, nor the Russians, nor the Spanish, nor the Filipinos, nor the Koreans, nor the Vietnamese, nor Chinese, the Apache… and dozens upon dozens more.

Or that you aren’t in a pile of terrorist rubble.

Had the US defense defended the US – and not poke their noses in everywhere – and actually defended the US – instead of watching dots on radar – there would be no pile of rubble.

ignoring all of the good things that are provided.

Like killing women and children.

There is not one thing the US military provides that is ‘good’. They are professional killers and destroyers.

It must be a tough world to live in. Do you apply the same standards to your spouse?

Yes. I don’t hang around people who believe they have a right to slaughter women and kids.

Would you disown her because she doesn’t put the cap on the toothpaste?

No, because that hasn’t killed anybody that I know of.

There is good and bad in everything.

There is purposeful evil and that is different then merely stubbing your toe.

A bomb didn’t accidentally load itself on a jet, and accidentally fall off.

It was ON PURPOSE.

You have used the couch/house argument before when that is not what is being said. What is being said is that if you don’t like the system in the country that you choose to live in, then you are free to go.

That is what is being said. You demand I accept murders and thieves or leave.

How about instead the murders and thieves leave?

If you live in a neighborhood where they steal your couch, you do have the ability to sell your house and move to one you find more suitable.

Or better for the entire neighborhood, get rid of the thieves.

Or you could stop insisting that police do nothing for you and perhaps they will stop the couch stealing.

They do nothing. That is their job.

I am sorry to hear of your father-in-law’s demise. That is always sad. But again, focusing on the bad and refusing to acknowledge the good is the issue for you. My world is a much safer place with police than without them.

No, it isn’t. It is safer with professional security personal – but police are there to protect government, not me.

No I wouldn’t kill Jews if the government said to, that is another radical statement made with the intent of making it sound as though I blindly follow any order. I give you more credit than that, I would appreciate similar consideration.

I have to say that for the first time, you have made me angry. So I am not going to write a lot tonight because it will serve no purpose to do so angrily. I will respond to only two things and come back to things tomorrow.

First, the constitution is not a piece of paper like yours. Get your paper ratified by the state governments of all the 50 states, as the constitution was, and yes, the house might, in fact, have to be given to you. I am not sure of that, but that is the difference. Rules ignored do not jive with the constitution. Those not ignored do. That is the criteria.

But that isn’t what has caused my anger. Not only did you simply refuse to offer me any credit or benefit of the doubt as I did you, but you decided that you would like to attack me personally. And that is where I draw the line. You see I don’t try to claim that everything the government or the military is good. But you choose to state the military does absolutely nothing good and state clearly that they do nothing but kill babies and women. Not one single thing they do is good, they are nothing but killers and destroyers. And when you make that statement to a 3 enlistment veteran of the United States military, they are going to take personal offense to that. Because I did plenty of good while I served my country. Something that you have obviously not done. I gave ten years of my life and more than a little blood so that you have the right to sit at your computer and bad mouth the country, take everything for granted, and bitch because the world is not set up the way you would like it to be. Go to another country and take the stance you are taking here. You will find yourself in jail or dead. But you take that for granted, tell people it is your right as a person and you don’t have to be thankful that you can do it. Well this is one of the few places in the world where that “right” is protected. Protected by that same piece of paper that you would burn if you could. And protected by those same baby killers that do no good.

I will leave it at that. I won’t stoop to the level of attacking your character, the way that you have continually done to me. You know, I didn’t even mind that you hate the country or that you are rooting for it to fail. I was happy to have intelligent discussion with someone who had a different viewpoint than mine. I did my best to not take it personally when you consistently spoke as though Anyone who disagreed with you simply wasn’t as enlightened as you. And as you started throwing barbs at me insinuating that my morals or principles were less than honorable or honest, I bit my tongue and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply trying to make a point. But I have my limits.

I will. I think Blackflag is a coward happy to sit behind the police line pointing at the burning building and laughing, telling the firefighters how stupid they are for supporting a evil regime and saving babies.

First, the constitution is not a piece of paper like yours. Get your paper ratified by the state governments of all the 50 states, as the constitution was, and yes, the house might, in fact, have to be given to you.

Oh, sorry – I didn’t know it matter to you how many hands need to be raised to make my theft valid.

Tell me, is it 100? 200? 1,000? 10,000? more?

How many hands need to be raised before I’m allowed to steal from you?

I am not sure of that, but that is the difference. Rules ignored do not jive with the constitution. Those not ignored do. That is the criteria.

So, since the income tax was not legally ratified, why do you pay it?

So, where in the constitution does it prohibit killing Jews?

But that isn’t what has caused my anger. Not only did you simply refuse to offer me any credit or benefit of the doubt as I did you, but you decided that you would like to attack me personally.

By questioning your ideas? By questioning your logic and reasoning? By demanding disclosure of your principles?

So be it.

But you choose to state the military does absolutely nothing good and state clearly that they do nothing but kill babies and women.

I do say they kill women and child. I have proof. Are you arguing against me on this?

The military has done nothing for any peaceful American since the end of the Revolutionary war.

Not one single thing they do is good, they are nothing but killers and destroyers. And when you make that statement to a 3 enlistment veteran of the United States military, they are going to take personal offense to that.

I do. If you hold the illusion that you’ve ‘saved’ me from something – it is yours to hold.

I am not saying you weren’t brave etc.

But bravery in the effort of evil is no badge of honor.

And I’m not alone – I’m sure you’ve read Gen. Butler…

strong“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

I gave ten years of my life and more than a little blood so that you have the right to sit at your computer and bad mouth the country, take everything for granted, and bitch because the world is not set up the way you would like it to be.

A mafia hit man could say the same thing, I still would not agree to the crime.

I know, for sure, you did nothing to save me, make me free, or allow me sit at a computer.

Go to another country and take the stance you are taking here. You will find yourself in jail or dead.

I need not go to another country to risk that. Here, the risk is just as high.

The government does not like to see its waste of human life go unrecognized as anything less than “heroic”. It makes more people want to die for the ’cause’.

But you take that for granted, tell people it is your right as a person and you don’t have to be thankful that you can do it.

I wish I could take it for granted, but the human cost is simply too high.

I cannot be thankful for the killing of children.

Well this is one of the few places in the world where that “right” is protected. Protected by that same piece of paper that you would burn if you could. And protected by those same baby killers that do no good.

No military has ‘protected’ me, ever.

The USA has never been invaded by an unprovoked nation -I repeat, USWEp, “NEVER” – and the last real invasion of the US was in 1814 by the British in retaliation for the invasion of Canada.

Your temper tantrum is simply another rouse to avoid a debate that you know you cannot win.

You cannot hold on to freedom and justice while at the same time supporting government, and you know it.

That’s a pretty ignorant statement, and asking anyone to disprove it is like asking someone to prove that something doesn’t exist.

The reason you aren’t speaking German right now is because of the US military. You might also read that as the reason you exist in your current form is because thousands before you have fought and died to make this country safe enough so you can bitch about it on the internet.

Invaded…. Not since the 1800’s, as you claimed. No one can invade us, because of that same military that you claim doesn’t protect you. I know you didn’t ask for it. You didn’t have to. That is a benefit of living in this country. Our military will protect you no matter how many times you call them baby killers or type out on your keyboard that government is nothing but liars, thieves and destroyers. You are like the woman who gets attacked by a rapist and yells at the person who stops the attacker, claiming that she could have taken care of herself. She can’t just be grateful that someone stopped her from being raped. You live under this blanket of protection every day, ungrateful and full of bitterness and under the false assumption that you don’t need anyone’s help ever.

And while not “invaded” we have been attacked several times. Pearl Harbor, the terrorist attacks on 9/11. I am sure you justify their actions as we had it coming. Lord knows we were peeing in Japan’s Wheaties for years and years prior to that attack? The military is what keeps those kind of attacks from happening all the time. You’re welcome, whether you wanted it or not.

You are right… I don’t know enough of your history to know you haven’t served in the military. But given your position and ignorance of all the military does that is good (which you can find a sample of in the new post), it was either assume that or assume that you are blind, deaf, and unable to know the meaning of the word “good”. I chose the former. If I am wrong I stand corrected. I will then revert to option 2.

As for your hero Gen. Butler. He is irrelevant to me. So a former soldier says bad things about his service. Shocker. It doesn’t change the good things that the military has done. I once stole a candy bar from a store as a stupid teenager. It doesn’t undo all the good things I have done since.

Claiming that I had a temper tantrum as a ruse to avoid a debate I cannot win is ridiculous. I wrote an emotional post, admittedly, because you called me a baby killer. You insulted me and every other veteran of this country. You are right, I cannot win. I will not win a single argument against you. I will admit to that. But it isn’t because you are right. It isn’t because you hold a position that is infallible. It is because no matter what is said or shown, you are simply unwilling to accept any other reality than your own. When someone assumes a pure idealistic position as you have, they cannot be reasoned with. I cannot win a battle using logic against someone who is incapable of accepting logic in the first place. You will never be wrong. You will never concede a point. You will never believe that anyone has a valid opinion unless it mimics yours.

And I am uninterested in discussing topics with someone who simply takes whatever statement that I make and turns it into as radically evil a statement as they can. If I say I don’t oppose some form of limited government, you respond claiming that I favor tyranny and violence. I can see the pattern and I am simply unwilling to constantly try to discuss the subject with someone who would rather use that tactic to seem like they are making a point than to actually discuss a subject assuming that the other party isn’t a bad person. As I said you refused to give me the same benefit of the doubt that I afforded you. Kent did not refuse to give me that benefit of the doubt because I afforded it to him regardless of whether his position was the same or radically different than my own. So I can discuss these same subjects with him and he is at least willing to consider my point of view and decide whether he agrees. Some people are smart enough to comprehend ideas. Others are only smart enough to comprehend their own.

That’s a pretty ignorant statement, and asking anyone to disprove it is like asking someone to prove that something doesn’t exist.

I didn’t ask anyone to disprove it (do you really read these posts??)

I stated a fact, for myself.

The reason you aren’t speaking German right now is because of the US military.

No, in fact, it’s because I’m not German or learned German.

I am always amazed that people read about the Germans inability to invade a small country, nearly resource-less, 40 miles across water – and believe that by some miracle, this same country could sail across an ocean and invade a country 2.5 times bigger in population and about 1500 times bigger in geography that was also the industrial giant to be called the “arsenal of democracy”.

Such mental disconnects amaze me.

You might also read that as the reason you exist in your current form is because thousands before you have fought and died to make this country safe enough so you can bitch about it on the internet.

Thousands have died – no, I correct you – millions have died.

But (since 1783) not one of those deaths made this country safe – arguably, it has made this country far more dangerous.

The USA has never been invaded by an unprovoked nation

Could it possibly be that it is because we have a well-funded volunteer military rather than some local security force that you managed to hire to protect your crops from thieves?

Well, let’s see. A military, whose budget exceeds the entire rest of the world, allowed an attack on New York.

I bet the Soviets were thinking “Why didn’t we do that?? – who woulda thought box-cutters would be better than nukes?”

The only way the US would lose a war is for the government to surrender – but if the people refuse to surrender, the US cannot be conquered.

The USA is strategically and tactically unconquerable.

It is surrounded by the two largest oceans on Earth. It has two small countries (population comparison) each on different sides of its borders. Both of these nations are among the USA strongest allies.

It sits on one of the largest stores of minerals, ore, oil and agriculture.

It is the third largest population on Earth – and most of these people, individually, are better armed than soldiers of many armies.

Go throw a shoe.

Frankly, that is this about necessary to scare off any potential threat to the USA …
…
… unless the other nation or people have reached what they see as its do/or/die. Then all bets are off, since the other side has nothing to lose by dying.

USWep:“You live under this blanket of protection every day, ungrateful and full of bitterness and under the false assumption that you don’t need anyone’s help ever.”

No, I live under my protection every day – the army does threaten that – as Jefferson said, a standing army is the greatest threat to the liberty of its citizens.

The US Armed Forces are a pure, offensive, capability. Their ability to defend the nation was exposed in 2001. Their ability to attack the world was shown that same year.

I have no illusions regarding professional killers amassed in coordinated, disciplined groups. They are bloody and deadly.

And while not “invaded” we have been attacked several times. Pearl Harbor,

…due to direct provocation of FDR. I’m sure you know that already – but FDR – the president got elected by claiming to keep the US out of the war (a bald-face lie, of course) provocated Japan to attack the US so that the US could enter the war.

As you know, Vietnam was a lie too. Now, documentation shows that the N.Vietnamese never attacked the Naval ships in the Gulf of Tonkin….a radarman’s mistake was used to justify the war by LBJ.

the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

1) They are not a country, but merely criminals.

2) Their actions were a direct consequence of ‘blow-back’ due to the incursions of the US military into areas of the world where the US is simply not welcome or wanted. Nobody is crashing jets into Swiss buildings….

Lord knows we were peeing in Japan’s Wheaties for years and years prior to that attack?

Sort of. The US embargoed oil exports to Japan…. including those from countries other than the USA – such as Dutch East Indies.

If you didn’t know, embargoes are an act of war….

Japan had less than 6 months of oil reserves – she had a do/or/die – break the embargo or die.

..we can debate this if you’d like…

The military is what keeps those kind of attacks from happening all the time.

I believe they are the reason they happen at all.

No one is invading Switzerland… and all they have is a citizen militia.

No one is invading Lichtenstein, and they don’t even have an army.

You are right… I don’t know enough of your history to know you haven’t served in the military.

I finished university when I was 16. I had been getting my license to fly since 15, and on my 16th birthday, got my private pilots – I hadn’t gotten my driver’s license yet – I’d rather be flying.

With parent’s consent, I joined the Air Force at 17. It was my dream to fly jets since I could remember.

Before I was 18, I had saved 13 men in my training squad from certain death in an extreme outdoor survival exercise that went horribly bad. I made a desperate gamble to save them – we’d all live or we’d all die by my choice – and got lucky.

While going through training, and the constant medical exams, a heart specialist found that my heart works slightly differently then yours – a 1/million heart. Makes no difference to my life, but being ‘not the same’ makes you unable to fly jets.

I was sent to Switzerland as a military attache to the embassy. 19 years old with a diplomatic passport…I had fun…but my dream was crushed and my life was over…I resigned, and started over in high technology.

Though at the time I thought it was the greatest personal disaster – my dream destroyed – it was a great blessing. I would have been flying over Yugoslavia dropping bombs on kids. I wouldn’t have done it – I would have been shot down and perhaps killed, or thrown in jail. My heart really did save my life.

As for your hero Gen. Butler. He is irrelevant to me.

Of course he is … to you. He must be an embarrassement for you.

He only won the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (the highest Marine medal at its time for officers), and subsequently the Medal of Honor twice.

Notably, he is one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, and one of only three to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions.

He, of anyone, knows what fighting bravely for his ‘country’ meant. And after he did all of that, he found out what he was fighting for…

…and became an outspoken person for anti-interventionism.

I once stole a candy bar from a store as a stupid teenager. It doesn’t undo all the good things I have done since.

Right, because you were a stupid teenager whose brain hadn’t grown up yet.

What’s the excuse now? What is the excuse for grown men to kill children?

I wrote an emotional post, admittedly, because you called me a baby killer. You insulted me and every other veteran of this country.

You have a problem reading, too?

I never called you such a thing.

If you wish to create a self-egocentric view the military, that is your psyche – not my fault.

You will never concede a point. You will never believe that anyone has a valid opinion unless it mimics yours.

Make a valid point first. Irrational arguments don’t count.

I admit it is rare – I’ve been around a long time and know a lot of stuff – but it has happened.

My wife did it, once – and I married her for it.

If I say I don’t oppose some form of limited government, you respond claiming that I favor tyranny and violence.

Again, slow down and read.

I don’t think I said you ‘favor tyranny and violence’ – I don’t believe you do.

I have said you support an entity that does favor violence.

I have said you support such evil because you believe, somehow, you can turn this into a good.

I think I’ve shown with logic and reason, this cannot be done – and by the same methodology, have shown that attempting to do so will only increase the evil.

What you read goes through your own eyes – I cannot be more clear than I am.

There is not one thing the US military provides that is ‘good’. They are professional killers and destroyers.

That is copied directly from your post. As a veteran of that military, That sure sounds to me like you said the only things the military provides are killing women and children. That last section doesn’t leave much to the imagination. Nothing good, nothing but killers and destroyers.

Claiming you didn’t call me a baby killer after those comments is like saying “all people who write blogs worship Satan. There is not one blog writer who doesn’t worship Satan.” And then saying that you didn’t call a particular blog writer a Satan worshiper. And there are plenty of rational points made. You simply refuse to recognize them because you don’t want to agree. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read a bit more carefully. I will read more and respond when I get done with work at midnight.

Government and fire are indeed similar. Like fire, government will grow if not controlled. It will grow as long as there is fuel. Like fire, government is neither inherently good or bad. It may be destructive or consumptive, but it can be used for constructive purposes. If it is out of control, it is bad, if it is in control, it is a very useful tool. And, like an out of control fire, government can only put in check by an equal force. Fire is often fought with fire, removing the fuel and restricting access to that which is not to be consumed. This is what a constitution does, if it is followed. The US constitution was a great attempt, but it has not been followed, and it lacked some controls that it needed, such as seperation of church and state being more clearly defined and enforced, and seperation of business and state.

Violence against theives or perpetrators of violence does not fuel it. Escalation is often the response, but at some point, only violence can answer a violent thing. The removal of government will not remove all violence from the world, it will not remove theives. It does not remove evil. It seems that you have gone beyond thinking that government is inherently evil into thinking that government actually causes evil, and that its removal will somehow recreate society into a violence and evil free place. Government is the fire that is weilded to fight the fire of violence and theivery. It may be easy for government to get out of control and actually be used as a tool of violence and theivery, but that is why it must be controlled. Without it, however, violence reigns free.

Your arguments in this post have waxed less and less credible, and your method of arguing has also degraded into personal attacks and gross generalizations. Please get back on track and start to think logically about the world with real people in it, and tell me how you would realistically deal with people who are evil without violence. It is almost as if you dont even support self-defense, or assume that somehow we would not need it. You also seem to not realize that a third party is often needed in resolution of dispute, because the perspectives of individuals is often very warped.

You cannot view the value of government services the way you do walmart, they are not even similar in the range of effect or the type of impact on your life and society. You are thinking far too narrowly to be able to objectively determine the impact of government at all. Your personal belief system is making you see only hte bad of government. It is fine to have a personal belief system, but the problem is that you cannot allow your belief to cloud your vision. The environmentalists who overdramatize the effects of pollution cause all sorts of problems, because they see things through a filter of a belief, and that makes what they see innaccurate. If you are innaccurate, then you cannot have credibility or develop a viable system in any way shape or form.

How do you propose to make them leave? Ignoring their existence and authority? I can assure you that will not work. They tried that with Germany before WWII. Pacifism will not solve every problem. If government is truly a purposeful evil, then I can assure you that ignoring them will not make them go away. I can also assure you that government is not the only purposeful evil, and the other purposeful evils cannot be dealt with in that manner either.

It is certain people who are the authors and perpetrators of purposeful evil, not an institution like government. Even in a society of self-government, there will be those who are evil and will try to perpetrate that evil on others.

The military has protected you. It did so in WWII. It did so in WWI. It has protected our allies as recently as the first Gulf War. It protected you in the Cold War. Its very existence protects you, whether you wish to believe it or not. It’s policing actions are a threat to this country and a cost. Its use for “spreading freedom and democracy” is a misuse and an attrocity. I ahve no problem criticizing the military and how it has been used, but I also have no problem supporting it and its existence when appropriate.

Also, even you admit the Revolutionary War was a good use of the military. Yet, that is an act of violence. It was necessary for freedom, because ignoring the rulership of Great Britain would not have worked. Your arguments are inconsistent.

“I am always amazed that people read about the Germans inability to invade a small country, nearly resource-less, 40 miles across water – and believe that by some miracle, this same country could sail across an ocean and invade a country 2.5 times bigger in population and about 1500 times bigger in geography that was also the industrial giant to be called the “arsenal of democracy”.

Such mental disconnects amaze me.”

Germany was unable to invade England because of its military fighting back with our productivity helping. If we had no military involvement, England would have fallen. Once it had fallen, Germany would have beaten Africa, then Russia. Once that had been done, its resources would have been more than sufficient to sail accross and defeat us. Its primary obstacle was not geographical, it was the US Navy. To ignore all of this and claim that our sheer size and productiviy, combined with local militias and self-governed persons intent on self defense would have been even remotely effective is bordering on the retarded. It is a complete dismissal of facts and reality. It completely boggles the mind the level of mental disconnect required for that. Think of the logistics and tactics involved in an invasion, and look at the war machine that was Germany. You are wildly incorrect in your assumptions sir.

Jon,Germany was unable to invade England because of its military fighting back with our productivity helping.
No, sir.
Historians usually place the beginning of the battle of Britain in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the Campaign against the USSR on 22 June 1941.
The Lend-Lease Act was signed 11 March 1941, and it was not until the fall of 1941 when the first materials (other than the 50 destroyers used to cover conveys from Canada) started showing up.
This is long after the Germans gave up on invading Britain.Once it had fallen, Germany would have beaten Africa
Africa was a ruse – the British had Africa under control long before the Americans entered the situation. By 5 November 1942, and the Battle of El-alamein, any effort in Africa was a diversion. It succeeded. The Allies delayed invasion of France disastrously by focusing on Italy. With that delay, the Russians almost captured all of Europe.
The war was over by Sept. 1941 – but no one knew that then.
On 14 September 1941, Ricard Sorge (A Russian spy in Japan) advised the Red Army that the Japanese were not going to attack the Soviet Union until:
1. Moscow was captured
2. the size of the Kwantung Army was three times that of the Soviet Union’s Far Eastern forces
3. a civil war had started in Siberia
“This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union’s keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders.”
These forces came into major combat and halted the German advances in the winter, 1941 and at Stalingrad, and with Japanese committed to Indochina and the Pacific, the war against Germany was a foregone conclusion, it was a mere matter of time before the Russians overwhelmed them.Once that had been done, its resources would have been more than sufficient to sail across and defeat us.
Unable to even supply its army on land, I argue that it would be impossible to do so across the Atlantic – without air cover, there is no way an invasion would even be contemplated.

Its primary obstacle was not geographical, it was the US Navy.
I do not agree – the primary obstacle would be a small air force – a hand full of aircraft would easily stop the most determined navy. The sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse by a mere 88 planes in 1941 demonstrated the end of sea-level naval power. Air craft and air superiority would be needed from then on. ..self-governed persons intent on self defense would have been even remotely effective is bordering on the retarded..
I guess the North Vietnamese were retarded too….as were any guerrilla resistance in history.
No major power has defeated an insurgency by sheer force of arms. It is a complete dismissal of facts and reality.
Sir, you watch too many old war movies – do check your facts prior to posting in war history.

A lack of rational argument would be to say that because there are military entities that do what you term bad, that any other good that the entity does is irrelevant. That has been the point of the argument, which you seem unable to process. See I see that the group of people you refer to are capable of good things and bad things. You irrationally feel that because some parts do bad things that the parts that do good things simply don’t exist. And I am the one who is failing to have a rational, logical argument? It is statements such as your “good is irrelevant” that show the inability to consider anything other than your own points of view. Hence why I stated that you simply twist the words, accept only what fits your argument, and then claim the rest of us are too ignorant to deal with your superior intellect. It’s like a sick joke that you are the only one in the room laughing at.

And if you can’t find one good thing the military does, then I can only guess that your grasp of reading the english language escapes you every time you click on the “Defending the Military” post. Not “jingoisms”, just acts that are helping another country. I am unsure how building a school in Ecquador or teaching first aid for disaster response to eleven African countries is jingoism. But bravo on the big word that you didn’t think I would know.

And you should check your facts as well. Perhaps Jon watches too many movies, but you obviously read too many anti-US biased war history books. Which doesn’t necessarily surprise me. You can twist your history any way you like. So let me twist a few facts back to reality for you.

You say: Historians usually place the beginning of the battle of Britain in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the Campaign against the USSR on 22 June 1941.

Interesting that historians actually note quite frequently that the Germans re-doubled efforts on April 23, 1942, as the first air raids began against cathedral cities in Britain. The “battle of britain” was merely a preliminary air campaign meant to attempt to force Britain out of the war via air power and if this failed to do so, the air assault would be a suitable preparation for the inevitable land assault. The Germans had not even remotely given up on Britain, they had merely concluded that they would not be able to force Britain out of the war via an air campaign. The only reason that they didn’t invade Britain at that point was because they did not feel as though they had yet reached a point where their Navy could facilitate a crossing of the channel. But they figured that they would eventually have the ability to do so because they would have better production. But what you fail to take into account in any of your “points” are the following facts:

British war material production peaked in late 1942 or early 1943, depending on who you ask. At that point they were operating on credit and it is accepted that their production would have dropped significantly without US intervention. German war production actually peaked in 1944, even after over a year of US and British bombing. The Germans were getting stronger as the war went on while the allies got weaker, until the US joined the fight that is.

The Germans did, in fact have to re-deploy and deal with the Russian front for much of the remainder of the war. The Russians were largely supplied by US and British materials and weapons. The only reason that Britain was able to offer that support was because the US was simultaneously supplying Britain with newer and more effective materials. Both the US and Russian had used up most of their foreign reserves and could only resupply and do what they did because of the favorable credit terms and gifts from the United States.

So in short, had the US not entered the war, most historians agree that the German war machine would have gotten stronger with production continuing to grow as the allies got consistently weaker. Had that been the case, the outcome of the war was certainly looking like a different outcome. The entire scope of the war would be changed without the Russian front being such a burr in the side of Germany. Without US help, that Russian front would have collapsed and subsequently the African and European theaters would have been much different because all of those troops would have been re-deployed to them instead.

You mentioned that the Japanese were unable to join the German fight because they were occupied in indochina and the Pacific. That would be occupied dealing with the US military. You finally mention that the Germans, unable to supply their forces by land, could not have done so across the Atlantic. Go back through the scenario above. Take the US out of the equation, and Germany’s position is far different. They would have continued to get stronger and then crossing the Atlantic would have been possible.

As for Vietnam. The guerilla fighters there were losing the battle until the ARMYs of the north joined in. And regardless, Vietnam was lost because the war was not fought correctly. Check ANY history of the Vietnam war and you can see that plainly. We lost because we failed to fight the war on our terms, not because the guerillas were capable of beating the US military in an all out war.

There are tons of facts around the wars, especially WWII, and you are picking and choosing ones that support your position, as usual. And it is interesting that you don’t have a problem with any other country’s military, only your own.

This Conversation has been moved to the “In Defense of Our Military” posting. That is only applicable to the US military part of the conversations. If you wish to comment on the Libertarian Platform Act VIII material, please continue the discussion here.